HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-03 PZC MINUTES•
•
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 3, 1999
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :05
p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Welker presiding .
Members present : Willis, Douglas, Rininger, Weber, Welker, Stockwell (entered late)
Members absent : Hayduk , Lathram, Ransick
Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Senior Planner
Dan Brotzman, City Attorney
Don Elliott, Clarion & Associates, consultant
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 20, 1999
Chairman Welker stated the Minutes of July 20, 1999 were to be considered for approval.
Douglas moved :
Rininger seconded: The Minutes of July 20, 1999 be approved as written.
Mr. Welker asked for modification of Page 6 , Paragraph 3 -regarding how area of a cir-
cle /square sign is to be determined.
Mr. Stockwell entered the meeting.
The vote was called on the motion to approve the Minutes, as amended on page 6.
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Douglas, Rininger , Stockwell , Weber, Willis, Welker
None
None
Hayduk , Lathram, Ransick
The motion carried.
III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
Group Living Facilities
CASE #ORD-99-02
Mr. Welker stated that this is a continuation of the Public Hearing begun on May 18 , 1999 .
• He asked for a motion to re-open the Hearing.
1
Douglas moved:
Rininger seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #ORD-99-02 be reopened.
AYES:
NAYS :
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Rininger, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Douglas, Welker
None
None
Hayduk, Lathram, Ransick
The motion carried.
Mr. Harold Stitt was sworn in, and stated that the Public Hearing was opened on May 18,
1999, and continued to enable staff to research and clarify points raised during the first portion
of the Hearing. Mr. Stitt distributed new draft copies of the proposed ordinance. This draft
ordinance incorporates in the text all changes noted in the memorandum to the Commission
from Mr. Stitt dated July 28, 1999. Mr. Stitt discussed the format of the proposed ordinance,
noting that new information is typically shown in upper case, and deletions are shown as
"strike-throughs". On this particular draft, some of the upper case verbiage is in "bold'', and
other portions are not. The "bold" upper case verbiage is the latest proposed wording. Mr.
Stitt stated that Mr. Don Elliott , who has been engaged by the City to prepare this proposed
ordinance, is present, and is prepared to discuss the proposal with the Commission.
Don Elliott , Vice President of Clarion Associates, was sworn in. Mr. Elliott stated that he has
•
worked with City staff on preparation of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Elliott suggested that •
the proposal be reviewed on a page-by-page basis.
Page 1: Mr. Elliott noted that a definition for "Detention Facility" is cited, even though the
proposed ordinance makes no allowance for a detention facility as a group living facility. Dis-
cussion ensued . Mr. Elliott pointed out that a situation may occur, similar to what recently
happened in Lakewood, wherein a number of "convicted" individuals may get together to rent
a house -if the house is not an approved "group living facility ", but is rented privately by the
convicted individuals, this proposed ordinance will not apply. Further discussion ensued on
the clarity of the definition.
Page 2: The definition of 'Group Living Facility" was discussed. This was modified by
striking the wording : " ... detention facility. Do not meet the definition of household living,
hotel, or motel. In Group ... " Also, the word "family" will be replaced with "household".
Mr. Stockwell suggested the need for definitions of hotel and motel. Mr. Stitt cited those defi-
nitions from Title16, Section8 , Definitions, of the Englewood Municipal Code, and cited the
redundancy of including those definitions in a proposed ordinance which will become a part of
Title 16 of the Englewood Municipal Code.
Page 3: Large/Special Group Living Facility: Mr. Elliott stated that this section has been re-
written so that if only one person in a "small group living facility" is receiving on-going medi-
cal or psychological treatment , the facility will be considered to be a large/special group living
2
•
,
• facility. Mr. Elliott cited "examples" of large/special group living facilities , including a se-
cure residential treatment center, shelter for homeless, dormitory , fraternity or sorority house,
a rooming or boarding house.
Mr. Stockwell noted that Mr . Elliott had cited CRS sections for the secure residential treatment
center, but not for the other examples; he asked if CRS references would be included for the
remaining examples. Mr. Elliott stated that the State of Colorado does not define every use,
nor does the State license some uses, such as a dormitory . Therefore , CRS citations will not
be included on all examples. Mr. Welker noted that dormitory , rooming and boarding houses,
fraternity and sorority houses are not defined even though reference is made to them ; he stated
that he isn't sure of a need to regulate them. Brief discussion ensued .
It was determined that the definition of Large/Special Group Living Facility would be amended
to include state "Small Treatment Facility RESIDENT" or "Small Group Living Facility
RESIDENT ", ... "
Page 4: Medical or Psychological Treatment: Mr. Elliott discussed this definition , and noted
that some treatment is for "day-to -da y living " and not for "recovery " purposes ; he cited treat-
ments for arthritis as a treatment to enable "day-to-day living ".
Page 5: Small Group Living Facility: This definition has reference to therap y and counseling
removed , an cited examples have changed . This definition does allow assistance for day-to-
• day living activities. It does not permit treatment programs .
•
Mr. Stockwell asked what an adult foster home is . Mr. Elliott stated that it is similar to a child
foster home , but those cared for in the family living environment are adults. Discussion en-
sued . Mr. Elliott noted that families are paid a stipend to care for foster children or foster
adults. After further discussion , it was determined that adult foster care should be eliminated
as an example for a small group li v ing facility .
Page 6 : Small Treatment Facility : Mr. Elliott stated that this is a "medium sized" category ,
which allows residents to receive medical or psychological treatment.
Page 7 : Mr . Elliott stated that the matrix indicating in which zone districts the different group
living facilities will be allowed has been clarified .
It was noted that #7 in the examples for Small Treatment Facility is a repetition of #4. Num-
ber 7 will be eliminated.
Page 8 : Section 16-4-23-2 addresses the spacing of group living facilities. Mr. Elliott stated
that he is comfortable with the spacing issue.
Subsection E has been rewritten , and now states that any group living facility with a resident
who has been CONVICTED by any court of more than one misdemeanor or felony involving
property damage or personal injury committed while a resident of the group living facility shall
3
be deemed to be a public nuisance , subject to enforcement actions and penalties applicable to
other public nuisances within the City. Mr . Elliott stated that, in his opinion , this clarifies in-
tent and provides for enforcement.
Mr. Douglas referenced §16-4-23-2 A (1), and asked if this provision was applicable to day
care homes run as a home occupation. Also, will the 1,250 foot space between any two group
living facilities hold up in court . Mr. Elliott stated that courts are split on distancing provi-
sions . Mr. Brotzman stated that he is comfortable with the spacing requirements as cited, and
feels it is defensible in court. Mr . Welker noted that spacing requirements are applied in other
instances , such as adult uses, an pawn shops. Mr. Elliott noted that the Fair Housing Act must
be taken into account when dealing with group living facilities; it does not apply to the two
uses cited by Mr . Welker.
Mr. Weber stated that the way provision §16-4-23-2-A-(1) reads , it appears that if there is a
group living facility in a block , that a day care home cannot be opened in that same block.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker asked if there was need to review the regulations on day care
homes. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt suggested that the question is why spacing be-
tween group living facilities and day care homes is needed ; what is the rationale for a spacing
requirement. What type of day care home do we want to protect from the group living facili-
ties: the infant toddler home , the family child care home , a dependent care center-which
may , or may not , be a child care center , and a large child care home. Mr. Stitt reiterated
"who are we trying to protect , and to protect from what?" He pointed out that the Commis-
sion must make findings , and tho se findings have to be justified . Discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt •
suggested that non-conforming status can be granted to group living facilities in existence
whenever a day care home or a school locates nearer than the specified distance . Mr . Elliott
suggested there must be a means to let day care operators know the location of the group living
facilities so that they may make an educated decision on whether or not to open a day care
home in close proximity. Discussion ensued . Mr . Douglas asked if day care homes were not
required to be licensed by the State of Colorado . Mr. Stitt stated that some are licensed ; many
are not. Additional discussion ensued .
The consensus is that §16-4-23-2-A (1) shall read "750 feet from any STATE LICENSED
CHILD care facility or any elementary , middle , or high school ; or "
Page 9 : Mr. Elliott discussed the rewording of section F to require notification of the City and
presentation of a current state license for the group living facility. Discussion ensued on this
paragraph. Mr. Douglas pointed out that if the provision states "within 30 da ys after initiating
operations " means that the group living facility can already be functioning before the City re-
ceives verification of licensing . If the group living facility doesn 't meet the requirements ,
what can the City do. Mr. Elliott stated that most cities he has dealt with don't like to shut the
group living facilities down. He suggested that some type of permit might be required prior to
beginning operation; such a requirement can easily be written. Discussion ensued . Mr.
Douglas stated that he felt that notification of intent to operate, and verification of state licens-
ing, must be required 30 days prior to beginning operatiop.
4
•
...
•
•
Mapping locations of group living facilities , and of approved day care homes , was discussed.
Mapping of these two uses will be needed to address compliance of the spacing restrictions .
Page 9 --§16-4-23-3: Reasonable Accommodation. Mr. Elliott stated that the Fair Housing
Act requires that local jurisdictions make "reasonable accommodations" to permit housing for
certain protected groups in residential areas . Minor modifications may be made by the City
administration; modifications that may be required which are not minor in nature may be ac-
complished only through a variance or rezoning process .
Page 10 : Parking regulations in §16-5 are proposed to be amended to address off-street park-
ing requirements for dormitories, fraternities, sororities, nursing homes, and group living fa-
cilities .
Discussion ensued. Mr. Elliott and the Commission reviewed the changes needed in this draft
of the proposed ordinance.
Douglas moved:
Stockwell seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #ORD-99-02 be closed.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Rininger , Stockwell , Weber , Willis, Douglas , Welker
None
None
Lathram , Ransick , Hayduk
The motion carried.
Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission.
Douglas moved :
Rininger seconded: The Commission approve the Group Living Facility Ordinance , Draft
7129199 , as amended , and refer this proposed amendment to the Com-
prehensive Zoning Ordinance to the Englewood City Council for consid-
eration and approval.
Mr. Welker asked if there was any discussion on the motion to approve . No questions or
comments were posed. Mr. Welker called for the vote.
AYES :
NAYS :
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Rininger , Stockwell , Weber , Willis, Douglas, Welker
None
None
Ransick , Hayduk , Lathram
The motion carried .
5
IV. ENGLEWOOD TOWN CENTER
PUD amendment -Sign Provisions
CASE #PUD-99-01
Mr. Welker referenced a memorandum from Senior Planner Stitt requesting a further continu-
ance of this Public Hearing to September 8, 1999.
Mr . Stitt addressed the Commission, and stated that he had spent considerable time with repre-
sentatives from David Owen Tryba Architects working on the proposed signage provisions,
and that, basically , the entire proposal is being rewritten. He stated that on September gm , the
Board of Adjustment will be meeting in the City Council Chambers; furthermore, Director
Simpson has requested that the proposed amendment be brought before the Commission as
soon as possible. Mr. Stitt stated that every effort will be made to have this proposal finalized
and ready for continuance of the Hearing on August 17m.
Douglas moved:
Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD-99-01 be continued to August 17,
1999 .
AYES:
NAYS :
Rininger , Stockwell , Weber , Willis , Douglas, Welker
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Hayduk, Lathram, Ransick
The motion carried .
V. PUBLIC FORUM
No one was present to address the Commission.
VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE .
Mr. Stitt stated that a "Tent Talk " is scheduled for August 23 at Cushing Park, from 6 p .m. to
8 p.m. City Council wants to take this opportunity to recognize all board and commission
members for the service they provide to the City. Mr . Stitt stated that attendance is not man-
datory , but suggested that it will be a nice opportunity for members to be publicly acknowl-
edged for their community service .
Mr. Stitt reported that on August 2 , 1999, the City Council approved a master development
agreement with Miller-Weingarten . This step means that the closing with Wal-Mart can pro-
ceed , and construction on that portion of the redevelopment can commence . Work on the re-
model of the former Foley's building into the new Civic Center can also begin . City Council
is looking at the possibility of a down-sized theater; there has been a market change in theater
development in the last six to nine months , and theater chains are not constructing the large
multi-screen complexes .
6
•
•
>
•
•
City Council approved entering into a contract with Kinley-Home for the Smart Growth Grant;
they will be looking at multi-modal transportation and transit station development. The Plan-
ning Commission will eventually become involved in this, also .
Mr. Stitt stated that the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Ordinance is being rewrit-
ten by City Attorney Brotzman; it will be taken before the Parks & Recreation Commission for
their comments on August 12, and will then be brought to the Planning Commission for re-
view.
Mr. Stitt reviewed the agenda for August 17m, noting that in addition to the continuance of the
PUD amendment public hearing, the Commission will also consider the Five Year Capital Plan
(FYCP), and a study/work session on a land use plan for the South Santa Fe Drive Corridor.
Mr. Stitt briefly discussed some uses proposed for the former General Iron site, and stated that
City Council has gone on record in opposition to a proposal from RTD for a maintenance fa-
cility. Brief discussion ensued.
VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Mr. Brotzman stated that the law firm of Otten Johnson Robinson Neff & Ragonetti has been
engaged to work with staff on the development of the land use plan along the Santa Fe corri-
dor; this has been approved by the City Council.
VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
Mr. Douglas stated that one of his concerns with the PROS Ordinance is there was no basic
criteria included -nothing setting forth setbacks, height restrictions, etc . -on which to base
determinations for structures proposed in parks or designated open spaces. Also, there was no
provision for public input -no hearings were required before any board or commission. Mr.
Brotzman stated that when the PROS Ordinance is brought back before the Commission they
will be aware of significant modifications; when there will be neighborhood impacts City
Council feels it will be proper for the Commission to hear the concerns and consider the im-
pacts.
Mr. Welker commented on Mr. Emison's appearance before the Commission at the last meet-
ing, and asked if the City is pursuing resolution of the issues raised. Mr. Stitt stated that he
has spoken to the Code Enforcement supervisor. He noted that some of Mr. Emison's issues
are code enforcement related; other issues pertain to dedicated access and improvement of that
access. Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Emison has been sent a letter setting forth the City's position
and the requirements Mr. Emison must meet on water and sewer service . This letter was sent
to Mr. Emison in late 1998 ; Mr. Stitt stated that it is his personal opinion that the City has
done as much as we can do . Mr. Emison feels it is the City's responsibility to procure right-
of-way for the street access. The City does not purchase property for street right-of-way, and
improvements to any right-of-way are charged back to adjoining property owners; this, in and
of itself, is a deterrent to dedication of right-of-way by adjoining property owners who may not
be able to afford a several thousand dollar assessment for street improvements . Mr. Stitt reit-
7
erated that Mr . Emison is mixing code enforcement and development issues. Brief discussion
ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that there is nothing the Planning Commission can do to resolve Mr.
Emison 's issues . Mr. Emison has been informed several times what process to follow , but he
has chosen to not comply. Mr . W el.leer asked if the City should make some further response
since he did come to the Commission. Mr. Stitt stated that the City is doing so.
There was nothing further brought before the Commission, and the meeting was declared ad-
journed.
~~/.~
Gertrude G. Welty, R~ngsecrery
f:\de pt\n bd\gro up \boards\planco mm\mi nutes 1999\pcm 08-99 a.doc
8
•
•